featuring developments in federal highway policies, programs, and research and technology
|
|
|
featuring developments in federal highway policies, programs, and research and technology |
||
|
The Federal
Transportation Livability Initiative - Building Livable Communities for the 21st
Century
|
|||||
 |
| Lexington, Va., has a historic downtown area with light standards and highway route signs that are compatible with the surrounding brick buildings. (Photo by Elizabeth E. Fischer) |
The
Three E's: Environment, Economy, Social Equity
The livable community concept is based on the principles of sustainable development
that focus on patterns of economic activity that produce environmental quality,
economic prosperity, and social equity. The Livability Initiative goes further
by providing tools and resources to encourage communities to collaborate to
find new ways to manage land use, transportation, and other resources to ensure
a high quality of life and strong, sustainable economic growth. Because communities
know what is best for themselves, the community's perspectives are emphasized
in all decision-making processes.
Why the
Livability Movement?
Spurred by the prosperity of the post-World War II era and the resulting availability
of affordable transportation, Americans began a migration from the cities to
the suburbs. This began a fundamental shift in land-use development patterns
and our sense of place.
The current challenges confronting urban, suburban, and rural communities are
interrelated by the fact that land is being developed faster than the population
is growing. However, it is the way in which land is being developed that causes
the greatest problems. Haphazard development with no foresight about how the
pieces fit together is called sprawl, and it is generally a sign of a deteriorating
quality of life. The center city and older inner suburbs are being abandoned,
leaving vast areas of infrastructure underused. Rural areas are seeing an erosion
of environmental, cultural, and economic values.
However, we have continued to follow the urban emigration because our perception
is that the suburbs have a plethora of resources - water, land for housing,
materials for construction - to accommodate our expansion. Public policy and
laws written in the last 60 years have encouraged this. Examples include Veterans
Administration loans, current policies of the Department of Housing and Urban
Development, and the Internal Revenue Service's rules for mortgages.
Objectives
of the Livability Initiative
The objective is to build livable communities for the 21st century - places
where young and old can walk, bike, and play together; where historic neighborhoods
are preserved; where farms, forests, and other green spaces are protected; where
parents spend less time in traffic and more time with their children, spouses,
and neighbors; where older neighborhoods can thrive once again. A livable community
has safe streets, good schools, and public and private spaces that help foster
a spirit of community.
Communities can become livable by implementing "smart growth" practices:
Sustain prosperity and expand economic growth by building on past investments
and preserving prime farm land for agricultural use. Enhance quality of life
by reducing congestion to increase personal time, encouraging redevelopment
of "brownfield" sites (abandoned, idled, or under-used commercial,
industrial, or institutional properties, where investment for redevelopment
or reuse is discouraged by the presence of light to moderate contamination from
hazardous substances), and reducing threats to air and water quality and open
space. Build a stronger sense of community by bringing citizens, businesses,
and governments together to solve common problems and to work as partners with
a common vision and mutually supporting goals.
Principles of the Livability Initiative
Communities know their needs best. The federal government's role is to provide
incentives for communities to work together; align departmental actions in support
of local smart growth initiatives; and supply information, tools, and resources
to empower citizens and communities.
Sometimes in the past, federal policies, rules, and regulations hampered community-based
decisions. Federal agencies are now working together to assist communities in
attaining their goals for livability and economic development. For example,
federal transportation programs and planning processes link safety concerns,
land-use development, environmental quality, the needs of disadvantaged populations,
and economic development into an integrated approach to community livability.
The comprehensive, coordinated effort by the Department of Transportation (DOT)
will help communities use their transportation plans, resources, and programs
to make decisions resulting in a better quality of life. The transportation
livability initiative will help communities use existing DOT programs more effectively
as they seek to improve safety, reduce the growth in congestion, contribute
to greater economic prosperity, and provide easier access to jobs, and greater
accessibility in an environmentally supportive way.
Local
and State Livability Effort
There is a national desire for livable communities. Pioneering livability initiatives
are arising from cities, towns, and counties. New partnerships and programs
are emerging at local and state levels.
In the November 1998 elections, the voters approved more than 200 measures that
will trigger more than $7.5 billion in additional state and local spending for
conservation. The success of 72 percent of the measures on the ballot show strong
constituency and grassroots engagement.1 The 1999 elections resulted in more
than 60 livability initiatives successfully supported on local, regional, and
state ballots.
Across the nation, cities, towns, and counties are pioneering a wide range of
innovative responses to the challenges of sprawl. Austin, Texas, overhauled
its land development code with the focus on neighborhood development, including
in-fill development opportunities. St. Louis, Mo., authorized transit-oriented
development for integrated land use, transportation planning, and walkable communities.
Minneapolis, Minn., as part of the statewide Smart Growth Network, established
a partnership of non-profit organizations, government agencies, and businesses.
Furthermore, jointly developed programs and partnerships to encourage and support
local livability efforts are emerging. In Utah, a Quality Growth Commission
was formed to help with sound growth management and planning statewide. In Greater
Chicago, 200 chief executive officers created a process to examine public policies,
institutional changes, and private investments for the benefit of the metropolitan
area.
The Administration's
Livability Goals
The Clinton-Gore administration has established five goals for livable communities:
DOT's
Livability Goals
DOT has added the following goals as part of its Livability Initiative:
 |
| This historic live oak canopy over this neighborhood street, formerly part of the old King's Highway, in Charleston, S.C., has caused great concern over the years to safety engineers. Yet, the trees remain as an important place-defining characteristic. (Photo by Elizabeth E. Fischer) |
Livability
Is Community-Specific
We must recognize that there is no single correct solution that is appropriate
for every community. Each community determines its own mix. The role of federal
and state governments is to inform - not direct - communities about patterns
of future growth.
Again, the livability of a place is defined by the communities of that place.
Livability seeks economic prosperity and a healthy environment without being
focused on "no growth" or exclusively on environmental issues. Smart
Growth, integrated planning, and other methods are used to achieve the livability
of communities. All processes are inclusive and evolving.
A caveat is that small, autonomous governments may be limited in their ability
to determine the impact of their land-use and transportation planning on neighboring
communities or a region. Thus, they should consider working with others.
Livability is not defined by federal or state governments for communities. It
is not environmental only nor is it a "no growth" ideal. Livability
does not have fragmented planning and is not exclusive with specific and predicted
outcomes predefined.
Current
Transportation Practices
By following a "business as usual" stance, we will continue to plan
only at the metropolitan and state levels. We will only consider laws that regulate
air quality and give us the standards and criteria of the day for toxic pollutants.
We continue to use fossil fuels as our primary energy source and drive vehicles
that have high gas-consumption rates. New development is independently determined
and randomly placed on the fringes. We are concerned only for the movement of
vehicles, passengers, and freight and will continue to seek the ultimate goal
of meeting congestion capacity needs for mobility.
Future
Transportation Practices
By adopting a stance to support livable communities, our plans will consider
not only local needs but the effects on the regions and the effects of our regional
plans on the nation and the world. We will focus on global climate-change issues,
including natural and greenhouse gas emissions, and adopt the Kyoto Protocol
- an agreement drafted during the Kyoto [Japan] Conference in December 1997,
in which 159 nations came together to set binding limits on greenhouse gas emissions
to protect future generations. Environmentally friendly, alternative fuels are
used by new vehicles. New development is built within the existing fabric following
smart growth practices by building on brownfields and determining urban growth
boundaries. Partnerships of the public and private sectors are the norm in determining
local growth and development needs. The focus is on providing mobility and access
to goods and services. We will find ways to balance the environment with the
economy while being equitable to all socio-economic levels.
Planning
Themes
The planning processes for livable communities are a holistic evaluation of
the local environment, its land uses, and the community needs. Each of the following
components and characteristics is integral to the success in making a community
more livable.
At a recent meeting of the National Conference of Mayors, the mayors identified several common needs as important issues for the long-term viability of their cities:
Project
Criteria
Livable communities are affected at the project level. Thus, each project plan
must address the following points:
Additional points that must be addressed are:
Livability
Web Sites
For more information about livable communities, please check the following Web
sites:
Reference
1. Phyllis Meyers. Report on the 1998 Elections, Brookings Institute, January
1999.
Elizabeth E. Fischer is a landscape architect in FHWA's Office of Human Environment, which is a part of the Planning and Environment Core Business Unit. While at FHWA, she has worked on the National Scenic Byways and TCSP programs in addition to overseeing visual quality and aesthetics issues and coordinating the agency's livability activities. Prior to joining FHWA in 1992, she worked for the North Carolina Department of Transportation, where she developed and oversaw the state's scenic byways program. Fischer is a member of the Transportation Research Board committees on Landscape and Design (A2A05) and Historic and Archaeological Preservation (A1F05). She is also a member of the American Society of Landscape Architects, in which she has held several positions of national leadership. She has a master's degree in landscape architecture from North Carolina State University. Her bachelor's degree from Randolph Macon College is in history and biology. She is a registered landscape architect in North Carolina.
Articles & Departments
The First Issue of Public Roads
IDAS Integrates ITS Into Planning Process
Turbo Architecture
Communities of Practice
Middle School Students Design Future Cities
The Partnership Initiative
An Australian Road Review
Advantages of the Split Intersection
One Mile in Five: Debunking the Myth
National Transportation Week
Annual Index
 |
TFHRC Home | FHWA
Home | Feedback
United States Department of Transportation - Federal Highway Administration |